The cybercrime trial of suspended Kogi Senator Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan was delayed after her lawyers raised a preliminary objection.
The Federal High Court adjourned the case to October 20 to hear the defence’s arguments.
The planned opening of the Federal Government’s cybercrime case against suspended Kogi Central Senator, Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan, at the Federal High Court in Abuja was postponed on Monday after her legal team raised a preliminary objection.
Akpoti-Uduaghan is facing a six-count charge under the Cybercrimes (Prohibition, Prevention, etc.) (Amendment) Act 2024, registered as suit number FHC/ABJ/CR/195/2025. She was arraigned on June 30 and released on self-recognizance. Prosecutors allege she used electronic channels to circulate false and harmful statements intended to incite unrest, damage reputations, and endanger lives.
The Director of Public Prosecution of the Federation, Mohammed Abubakar, filed the charges accusing Akpoti-Uduaghan of making statements during a political gathering in Ihima, Kogi State, on April 4, 2025, and later repeating them on television. The remarks allegedly implicated Senate President Godswill Akpabio and former Kogi Governor Yahaya Bello in a plot to harm her. According to the charge sheet, these assertions violated Section 24(2)(c) of the Cybercrimes Act and carried criminal penalties under the same law.
At Monday’s hearing, government lawyer David Kaswe said the prosecution had prepared to begin its case, with a witness ready and video equipment installed in the courtroom to support its evidence.
Defence counsel Ehiogie West-Idahosa, SAN, however, told the court that his team had filed a preliminary objection challenging the court’s jurisdiction to hear the case. He argued that the objection stemmed from what he called an abuse of prosecutorial powers by the Attorney-General of the Federation and also complained that the defence had not received statements from prosecution witnesses.
Although Kaswe urged the court to allow the trial to start, Justice Mohammed Umar ruled that the defence objection must be heard first. He adjourned the matter until October 20 for arguments on the objection and possible commencement of trial.
